ArticleMicromachines2019
Fabrication of Micro- and Nanopillars from Pyrolytic Carbon and Tetrahedral Amorphous Carbon.
Article in Micromachines, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modelling of Stem Cells Microenvironment Using Carbon-Based Scaffold for Tissue Engineering Application-A Review.Polymers · 2021Review
- Selective Direct Laser Writing of Pyrolytic Carbon Microelectrodes in Absorber-Modified SU-8.Micromachines · 2021Article
- Macro-, Micro- and Nano-Roughness of Carbon-Based Interface with the Living Cells: Towards a Versatile Bio-Sensing Platform.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pattern formation of pyrolyzed carbon (PyC) and tetrahedral amorphous carbon (ta-C) thin films were investigated at micro- and nanoscale. Micro- and nanopillars were fabricated from both materials, and their biocompatibility was studied with cell viability tests. Carbon materials are known to be very challenging to pattern. Here we demonstrate two approaches to create biocompatible carbon features. The microtopographies were 2 μ m or 20 μ m pillars (1:1 aspect ratio) with three different pillar layouts (square-grid, hexa-grid, or random-grid orientation). The nanoscale topography consisted of random nanopillars fabricated by maskless anisotropic etching. The PyC structures were fabricated with photolithography and embossing techniques in SU-8 photopolymer which was pyrolyzed in an inert atmosphere. The ta-C is a thin film coating, and the structures for it were fabricated on silicon substrates. Despite different fabrication methods, both materials were formed into comparable micro- and nanostructures. Mouse neural stem cells were cultured on the samples (without any coatings) and their viability was evaluated with colorimetric viability assay. All samples expressed good biocompatibility, but the topography has only a minor effect on viability. Two μ m pillars in ta-C shows increased cell count and aggregation compared to planar ta-C reference sample. The presented materials and fabrication techniques are well suited for applications that require carbon chemistry and benefit from large surface area and topography, such as electrophysiological and -chemical sensors for in vivo and in vitro measurements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.